2015/2016 New 3rd gen Tacoma Debut in Detriot

Clutch

Clutch

<---Pass
Scott C said:
I would prefer a simpler NA gas V-6 if they can get decent power and mpg.
Click to expand...

There is that, though in this day and age...don't know if I can call a modern engine simple...what's adding a turbo or two? :D

The 3.5 V6 puts out some decent numbers....300 hp 280 tq range.
 
Last edited:
Clutch

Clutch

<---Pass
Reminiscent of the 1979-83 dash.

cbbfd3837fef210baa89b016fe4b1f3b.jpg


1b.jpg
 
Last edited:
speedtre

speedtre

Explorer
rustbucket4wd said:
Trucks keep getting bigger and bigger. The newer tacomas are about the size of an old tundra. Tundras and other full size trucks are entering another market. Fuller size? Every year engines improve in their power and fuel efficiency but every new model also grows in size and weight. I want to see a high power, high efficiency, new engine in a lightweight mini truck platform. Maybe then we can expect 30+ mpg in a powerful 4x4 with an engine in n/a form. When trucks stop growing and engine technology continues to improve, then the only thing that can rise is mpg. I dont know, maybe in 50 years it will happen, or maybe by then, full size trucks will be the size of semis.
Click to expand...

THIS!!!!!!!! Will we EVER get an actual SMALLish (as in no bigger than 1st gen tacomas) 4door 4x4 P/U again? I'm really beginning to doubt it....is Ford (?!?!?!) our last hope...say it ain't so.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/ford-considering-ranger-sized-compact-pickup/
 
Last edited:
Martinjmpr

Martinjmpr

Wiffleball Batter
speedtre said:
THIS!!!!!!!! Will we EVER get an actual SMALLish (as in no bigger than 1st gen tacomas) 4door 4x4 P/U again? I'm really beginning to doubt it....is Ford (?!?!?!) are last hope...say it ain't so.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/ford-considering-ranger-sized-compact-pickup/
Click to expand...
.
Unfortunately this is being driven by buyers. Consider the Tundra. The first Tundra was a decent sized pickup with a moderate sized V8. When it was introduced it was physically smaller than its counterparts from the big 3.
.
And it got its butt kicked in sales from the big 3. As the big 3 emphasized how big their trucks were, how powerful the engines were, and how much they could tow, the Tundra looked puny by comparison. Never mind that most people don't need the power that the full size truck has, the fact that they can get it makes it "more valuable" to them.
.
I call it the "unnecessary capability" conundrum. If you sell a product that can haul 4,000lbs, I can turn around and sell a competing product that hauls 4,500 lbs for a higher price, and the customer will pay more because he perceives that he is "getting more." The fact that he never hauls more than 2,000lbs is irrelevant, because my product has "more" and more=better, always.
.
This is the reason that modern full size trucks look so ridiculous. Because there's a never-ending arms race of bigger, bigger, bigger. :rolleyes: Look at how they're advertised: "our truck has a thicker frame" "our truck tows more" "our truck has a bigger payload capacity."
.
The question that never seems to be asked is "what good is having an additional capability if that capability is one I'm probably never going to need or use?" Especially when that "additional capability" comes with a significant cost in initial price, or in fuel economy?
.
It's a good question but those who buy full size trucks don't seem to care, they want bigger & more, so that's what the manufacturers are offering them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
188,349
Messages
2,903,654
Members
230,227
Latest member
banshee01

Members online

... and 7 more.
Total: 1,384 (members: 57, guests: 1,327)
Top